[quote=frjeff]Definitely NOT a fan.
I also agree fully. This is a real disimprovement! Revoke the changes, please.
therwol wrote:
Have you tried focus stacking?
f16 is waaay quicker and much easier. I often shoot on the run and there would be no time to set my camera for a focus stack.
kymarto wrote:
This works absolutely fine for most purposes. One of my favorite lenses for closeup work is a 35mm lens from the 60s. As long as you are not trying to photograph flat objects with edge to edge sharpness it won't matter much.
Sony RX1 Rii, 42mp, full frame, fixed 35mm. Small camera was my favorite for a long time. I took several thousand flower shots, very close, filling the frame over a couple of years. Great little camera at the time. No one seems to have even heard of it!
It still works great and I now mostly use it when I need to shoot very discreetly. It is small and quick.
Thank you all once again. Interesting. My question was more intellectual than practical. I use my 110mm and 90mm without caring if they are macro or not. I shoot 90% at f16, probably 5% at f22 and 5% at f11. one in 500 outside of that range. I often want closeups of flowers and MFD can be important, and DOF is always important for me. Bokeh is not in my vocabulary.
Also, since I process everything through rather amazingly good noise and sharpening routines, this all adds up to "It doesn't matter" if they are macro or not. But, this is the way I work, simple mindedly. your needs may be more sophisticated.
My Fuji 110mm f2.0 non-macro will focus down to 3 ft. My Pentax 90mm f2.8 Macro will focus down to 1.4 ft.
Other than that, they both deliver about the same great quality everywhere. No real difference. But then, I am not shooting circuit boards.
Thanks all! I this this pretty much boils down to aperture and minimum focal distance. I'm not hearing of any loss otherwise. Except maybe, if I can get close, I must bend the knee! Thanks again.
I have a 90mm Macro Prime.
I presume that its design to focus relatively near, and its special designation “macro”, means that I give up something on the other end, for distant objects? What do I lose with a macro?
Or, does it only mean that it is a more sophisticated design and is going to cost a little more?
I have had several macros over the years and have never noticed anything different except the near focus.
Last two really hit it. Didn't know there is no glass in ftz adaptor. And then experience added in. Question answered. Many thanks.
I'm dealing in the realm of extreme sharpness, color true, and overall picture quality. Just a similar "pretty" a picture doesn't cut it for me. Thanks, but experience is the only way to know.
Question: How does F-glass on Z-camera (with adaptor) image quality compare to F-glass on F-camera?
I am reasonably sure Z-glass on Z-camera is notable better, but how much do I lose compared to my previous work on F-camera, if anything, by using F-glass on new Z-camera?